SADAR ANJUMAN AHMEDIYYA MUSLIM MISSION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a president of a Society Sadar Anjuma Ahmediyya, Hyderabad. Ahmadiyya is a sect or the denomination of Islam religion and is a minority community which maintains its own religious institutions.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Society entered into an agreement to purchase S. Nos. 294 to 302 of the extent of Ac. 76-00 in Attapur village, Rangareddy District at the rate of Rs. 2,500.00 per acre and paid Rs. 1,60.000.00 to the vendors from time to time towards the sale price. The Society was put in possession of the land and also constructed a building at a cost of Rs. 50,000.00 in the year 1967 for the purpose of carrying on religious activities. Out of this land, the land bearing S. Nos. 294 to 300 was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10-3-1971 was published in the Gazette on 25-3-1971. On the same day, a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published. Representations were made to the State Government not to acquire the land as it belongs to a minority sect and was used for religious purposes. In view of this representation, the case of the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings were dropped in the year 1974 and a memorandum to that effect dated 20-10-1974 was issued by the Government the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner however was surprised that proceedings under the land Acquisition Act were started again on 26-3-1979. The Society gave a representation to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad that he had no jurisdiction to continue the land acquisition proceedings. It was contended inter alia before him that as the land formed part of Ranga Reddy District, he had no jurisdiction to continue the land acquisition proceedings. This contention was rejected by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 23-4-1979. The petitioner thereupon filed this Writ Petition praying for the issue of an appropriate direction directing the 2nd respondent to forbear from proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the acquisition of S. Nos. 294 to 300 in Attapur Village measuring Ac. 64-15 guntas. Sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions before us: (i) The land acquisition proceedings were dropped in 1974 and the respondents had no jurisdiction proceedings. The Land could not be acquired without fresh notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) The land acquisition proceedings are violative of the fundamental rights 9f the petitioner Society granted under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. (iii) There was no public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act at a convenient place in the locality as required by Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act and hence the acquisition proceedings are illegal. (iv) Even though the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25-3-1971 no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken until 1979 and in view of this enormous delay the proceedings are illegal and are liable to be quashed. (v) The Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad who is the 2nd respondent herein has no jurisdiction to continue the land acquisition proceedings as the land is situated in Ranga Reddy District. CONTENTION I : - The first and main contention is that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped even in 1974 and hence proceedings cannot be taken in pursuance of the earlier notifications of 1971 without issuing fresh notifications. The respondents deny that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. In any event, it is contended that until and unless there is a notification cancelling the earlier notification or withdrawing the land from the acquisition proceedings, the original, notification continues to be in force and proceedings can be continued at any time in pursuance of the said notification.

(3.) In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to state a few facts. The acquisition was made for the construction of the National Police Academy. After the notification was published, it was challenged by a party who claimed to be interested in the land as a perpetual lessee in Writ Petition No. 3299 of 1971. He contended that notice of the acquisition proceedings must be given to him and in his absence, the proceedings cannot go on. He also applied for stay of further proceedings and passing of the award in Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition No. 5078 of 1971. Consequently, this petition was dismissed on 2-2-1972 on the ground that his request that he should be impleaded in the land acquisition proceedings was granted by the authorities concerned. Another Writ Petition No. 3667 of 1971 filed by another person in regard to the land acquisition proceedings was withdrawn on 24-2-1972. It appears from the records produced before us that the Director, National Police Academy addressed a letter to the Government on 16-10-1974 that the proposal for acquiring additional land for the Academy was initiated to finds additional accommodation for the National police Academy. Sing then the requirements were met by the land made available by the Osmania University. In the circumstances, the Government of India intimated the Academy not to go ahead with the acquisition of additional land and therefore the academy requested that the acquisition proceedings may be dropped for the present. Accordingly the government addressed a letter to the Collector, Hyderabad enclosing a copy of the letter received from the National Police Academy and requested him to drop further proceedings in the matter in view of the circumstances explained by the Director, National Police Academy. The Collector in his turn addressed a letter to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Hyderabad dated 29-11-1974 enclosing a copy the of the Government Memorandum and requesting the Special Deputy Collector to submit the withdrawal proposal in this regard. The Special Deputy Collector, accordingly sent a withdrawal notification purporting to be under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Collector with a request to approve the same and forward it to the Government for the approval of the Government and for publication in the Government Gazette. The Collector accordingly sent the withdrawal notification under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for approval of the Government and causing its publication in the Gazette. It however appears that before the withdrawal notification was published, a letter was received from the Director of the National Police Academy dated 18-2-1976 stating that the Government of India had now conveyed sanction of the President to incur an expenditure not exceeding Rs. 11,50,000.00 on the acquisition of Ac. 75-40 guntas of land in S. Nos. 294 to 300 and S. No. 29. He therefore requested that the Land Acquisition Officer may be directed to place the land contained in S. Nos. 294 to 300 at the disposal of the National Police Academy. Accordingly, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were sought to be continued. The petitioner who entered into an agreement of sale with the purchaser in 1967 addressed a letter on 6-8-1977 stating that the entire compensation has to be paid to him. Thereafter, as has already been stated he objected in 1979 to the jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Collector to continue the land acquisition proceedings as the land was situated in Ranga Reddy District and his representation having been rejected, he filed this present Writ Petition.